Toto

Ben Witherington Just doesn't get it

(on the secular study of religion)

GakuseiDon

I agree, it's a great blog post. The following isn't the main theme of the article, but I think this part definitely needed to be said:

(of course, religious people can do excellent secular work). If anything, the recent situation reflects the common misconception that teaching about religions is essentially a religious act itself... Folks in biblical studies and religious studies face it all the time. Many people just do not believe that religion can be studied non-religiously.

DrJim

Why, thanks for the plug!

Witherington is a jerk. It only goes to show how badly the SBL and other academic organizations should get the nerve to stand up for secular academic standards.

Jeffrey Gibson

So you think that the SBL is somehow responsible for Witherington's remarks and or that he speaks on behalf of, and with the approval of, the SBL?

And have I read you correctly? You claim that A. Loveday is an evangelical?

Jeffrey

Celsus

Witherington really just shows how hopelessly trapped in his own hermeneutic construction he really is. Posts like that are good for revealing pretenses.

Clivedurdle

I know a graduate of this department who is best described as happy clappy Anglican.....

Jeffrey Gibson

And which hermeneutical construction would that be?

Jeffrey

DrJim

I must learn to think before I type. I'm not blaming the SBL for Witherington's stupid comments at all. Sorry I gave that impression. I was kind of holding my whole post and some other issues in my brain and jumped to my own conclusion...
I also don't recall calling Loveday A. an evangelical or anything else for that matter.

Witherinton and Sheffield operate in two entirely different worlds. There may be a few points of contact between what W. and say, Philip Davies, do for a living (Ok, Davies is now retired...), but really, in terms of how they see scholarship, why they are doing it and who they are doing it for, they have nothing in common.

What I was lamenting was that secular biblical studies is so often conflated with theological education and that many people can't see the difference or if they can, disregard it. I think universities sometimes force one to be the other in attempts to be all things to all people. The ambivalence of many people to this issue only reinforces this. It is certainly an ambivalence supported by the SBL that doesn't mind associating itself with the practice of theology as if the secular study of the bible is intended to serve the discourses of the church. It also reinforces the view held by some that places like Sheffield should defer to some people's religious views.

I do think the SBL and other organizations that value secular scholarship should start publicly recognizing those differences a lot more than they do, and affirming a position that is distinctly pro-secular. No, the SBL didn't make Witherington write what he did, and no, he was not speaking on behalf of the SBL. But the fuzziness of the whole field of biblical studies is the context for what he wrote.

Celsus

The one in which the only valid interpretation must be that of the Christian (religionist?), a la FF Bruce. Sheffield's apparent 'demise' is being interpreted in the same way Hebrew prophets denounced Israelite kings (and god bless 20-20 hindsight) for their failure to serve Yahweh and therefore everything bad that ever happens henceforth is theirfault(tm). It's a load of tripe basically.

Jeffrey Gibson

I take it that you've never read Witherington's The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Founbdations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Weslyanism? (or via: amazon.co.uk) in which he shows that his hermenuetic is a bit more sophisticated than you present it to be -- or logic text books which discuss the argument known as "the straw man".

Jeffrey